740.00119 Control (Japan)/5–949: Airgram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France

restricted

A–737. Reference Embassy’s telegram 1879, May 9, 1949. Unless you perceive objection, please convey substance following to Foreign Minister:

US Government after study situation in Japan presented proposal to FEC calling upon member governments to take lead in encouraging progressive resumption by Japan of international responsibilities. It was hoped that member governments would approach this matter from standpoint of broad policy. Situation in Japan today calls for more than emphasis on internal reform and economic stabilization. Through participation in international relationships the Japanese will acquire direct experience and knowledge of democratic institutions abroad. It will restore measure of self-confidence and help to develop sense of responsibility.

Viewed in broad picture of present world developments this matter becomes more than problem of legal technicalities. Indeed, from strictly legal standpoint, SCAP appears to have sufficient discretionary powers at present to permit Japanese participation in international relationships. It should be emphasized, however, that final authority for such participation remains with governments concerned. International relationships are mutual undertaking and unless all governments in spirit of leadership seek to dissipate vestiges of hatred and bitterness which are inevitable aftermath of war, little can be accomplished. Each government obviously has right to refuse to enter into relationships with Japan or to deny Japanese access to its territory. [Page 795] Likewise, determination of whether or not Japan should be invited to participate in conferences or international organizations lies with member governments concerned.

While US Government attaches greater importance to the broad political aspects of this problem, it has not overlooked legal implications including points such as those mentioned by French Government. French Government states that basic Post-Surrender Policy did not provide that FEC might be progressively deprived, as regards the control of Japan’s foreign relations, of the powers given to it by the Moscow Agreement of December 27, 1945. US does not consider that passage by FEC of policy decision deprives FEC of further jurisdiction over or consideration of that problem. In approving proposed policy FEC would merely be performing its proper role of formulating policy guidance which SCAP will implement on behalf of all FEC countries. In accordance with past practice, this would not constitute a loss of FEC jurisdiction. Moreover, Commission under paragraph III, A 2 has authority to review any action of SCAP involving FEC policy decisions.

The French Government contends that discretionary powers in field of Japanese foreign relations cannot however be delegated to SCAP by FEC as neither Commission nor individual governments represented in it possess powers to affect Japan’s international relationships. This accords with principle expressed by US Government that international relationships are mutual and are dependent upon the individual countries concerned. For this reason and with the desire to have FEC countries take the leadership in opening the way to Japan, the US put forward its proposal. In view of US, SCAP already possesses sufficient legal powers to act on his own in this respect. US Government considers that military occupants of conquered and subjugated country have supreme power over territory occupied, and in particular possess unquestioned right to regulate all intercourse between country under their control and outside world. Consequently, it is entirely reasonable and in accord with international agreement which created SCAP as the sole executive authority for the Allied powers that right of the Allied Powers as belligerent occupants of Japan to regulate all intercourse between Japan and the outside world should be exercised by SCAP. Such, indeed, is now the case. The FEC is fully entitled to formulate policies with regard to the regulation of intercourse between Japan and other countries and in fact, in the Basic Post Surrender Policy, accepted obligation to bring about the establishment of Japanese Government which will carry out its international obligations. Acting under this and other broad policy provisions, SCAP, in the absence of a contrary FEC policy, possesses adequate discretionary powers. The US Government shares view of the French Government that acceptance of Japan cannot be forced on other governments by FEC or by SCAP.

With reference to suggestion that SCAP notify Commission, for its information, of any decision taken regarding Japanese participation in international non-political conferences, SCAP is already following this practice, with which the US is in full accord.

The French Government also proposed that any commitments which might be subscribed to by the Japanese Government in bilateral or multilateral agreements of a technical character should be ultimately submitted to FEC for its approval. The US Government feels that [Page 796] such a proposal is impracticable. The FEC can hardly become an administrative organ in the field of Japan’s foreign relationships any more than it can become an administrative organ for Japanese internal relationships. The FEC, of course, has the power to review any of SCAP’s actions approving Japan’s participation in bilateral or multilateral agreements.

The US Government trusts that French Government will agree that situation in Japan in the matter of international relationships is not comparable with that in Germany. US fails to see any constructive purposes to be served by attempting to formulate parallel procedures for two countries. Unlike Germany, Japan for past three years has had a representative and responsible government, subject to SCAP control. To prevent Japanese Government, under control of SCAP, from exercising further responsibility for which it has become adequately prepared in last three years, only because there has been no German Government to exercise a corresponding responsibility, is to penalize Japanese people for circumstances beyond their control.

While the US Government would welcome a further expression of views of the French Government especially in regard to broad political issues involved, it is the hope of this Government that French Government will be able to give sympathetic consideration and support to proposal for Japanese participation in international relationships under SCAP control.

The substance of the above is also being transmitted to the French Ambassador and to heads of other missions of FEC member governments in Washington.1

Acheson
  1. Notes to French Ambassador Henri Bonnet on July 13 and to other representatives on the Far Eastern Commission on July 19, not printed; General McCoy was similarly informed on July 20 and authorized to use the substance in formar or informal discussions with members of the FEC. (740.00119 Control (Japan)/7–1349 and 794.00/7–2049) For Department statement released on August 18 in regard to Japanese participation in international relations, see Department of State Bulletin, August 29, 1949, p. 307.